stainless1911
Banned
I wish we had that here. Minus the night time part. My house was once broken into in broad daylight, one of the items taken was a Remmington 700.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Why you need a gun/CPL
- Thread starter TheQ
- Start date
TheQ
Regular Member
Self defense is an affirmative defense. This means in order to use it you have to admit to the underlying killing/battery. If your defense falls apart, you're hosed. Just something to keep in mind.
You can still be sued civilly, just you should be able to have the case bounced fairly easily by the judge.
IANAL!
You can still be sued civilly, just you should be able to have the case bounced fairly easily by the judge.
IANAL!
Last edited:
xmanhockey7
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2010
- Messages
- 1,195
Why just nighttime?
stainless1911
Banned
politics. Probably so that they could get it passed.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
And I think under Michigan law, or in/on a vehicle, or if you were home or came home during the robbery, it is assumed that he was there to do bodily harm and you could have shot him. If you weren't there, it would be tough to shoot him even if Michigan did make a provision for property. I also believe it is still possible for the family of the person killed in Texas to bring a civil suit against the shooter, but I could be wrong. I think I'll pass and keep the law here just as it is written.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0311.htm
Last edited:
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
If you are justified in using force, in Michigan you are protected from civil suits... Texas, I'm not sure. I couldn't find it mentioned in the law there that you have the same protection regarding civil suits as we in Michigan do, but like I said, I'm not sure. But there definitely is such here.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/publicact/htm/2006-PA-0314.htm
stainless1911
Banned
I wasnt home.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Then how then does your statement support the idea it would be better to have a law allowing the protection of property if you aren't there to shoot the thief? In order to protect your property, you'd need to be there to do the protecting. This is not much different than Michigan law... only that Michigan's law only covers you when at home, in a vehicle, etc. whereas in Texas you are not limited to those specific places... but Michigan has the "civil suit" protection which imho more than makes up for the difference
stainless1911
Banned
I wasn't basing my opinion on that one experience alone.
If someone for example, comes out of a store, and sees some people ransacking the car, they should be able to dispatch every one of them, as opposed to being forced to cower away on the phone with 911 as thier property is invaded destroyed, and stolen.
If someone for example, comes out of a store, and sees some people ransacking the car, they should be able to dispatch every one of them, as opposed to being forced to cower away on the phone with 911 as thier property is invaded destroyed, and stolen.
TheQ
Regular Member
Yet nothing prevents them from suing you. If thy sue you you can get the case bounced and attorney fees paid -- but they can still sue you, unsuccessfully.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Please provide a case where this has happened... the courts in GR/Kent County, of all places, when a young man was shot at a Shell station in the Boston Square area of GR, wouldn't even allow the filing if the papers by the family.
SpringerXDacp
New member
Personally, I'd have a very difficult time choosing to perforate someone for an attempt to break into my car. On the other hand, if he or they came at me aggressively, that may change the outcome.
ElectricianLU58
Regular Member
that is how it should be.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
Vehicles are covered like homes in Michigan's self defense law. Reminder, though, that what is allowed by law is not required by law.
Last edited:
ElectricianLU58
Regular Member
i feel the same way. shooting someone over an ipod or a surefire flashlight or the change in my console seems like a choice i would never make.
TheQ
Regular Member
I'm passing on the words of some lawyers at MGO. You could bring the topic up over there again of you'd like.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
No thanks... but I would ask for situations where this happened. Not saying that this is applicable to what is being said over on MGO, but I have found that "experts" oftentimes start to think that their opinions... even with no real support from verifiable data, have the force of "law". My only suggestion is to "verify, verify, verify".
CoonDog
Regular Member
Unless I was actually IN the vehicle at the time, I think I'd actually be glad to get rid of either of our cars. :lol:
stainless1911
Banned
A few months ago, I woke up to find my sunroof shattered all over the car, and driveway, nothing was taken, but if the law would allow it, I would have had no issue with opening up on them, had I seen them breaking in..
Keep in mind, if there were such a provision in the law, it is highly unlikely that the car would have been damaged to begin with.
DrTodd
Michigan Moderator
If I'm "in" my car I would probably see it quite differently than I would being quite a distance away... although, come to think of it, same thought probably applies to my house. But, in both circumstances, a number of factors come into play.